State v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 31 October 1854 |
| Citation | 20 Mo. 55 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. MATTHEWS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A judgment of conviction in a criminal case cannot be sustained, where the record does not show that the defendant was ever in court until after verdict.
2. A party taking property under the direction of another, to whom he believed it to belong, is not guilty of larceny.
3. It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury in a criminal case. If the instructions asked are objectionable in their phraseology, the court should not neglect to give such as the law of the case requires.
4. Altering the mark of an animal is not larceny under the statute, unless done with the intention to steal or convert.
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court.
Indictment for hog stealing. The indictment contained three counts.
The first count charged that the defendant, on, &c., with, &c., at &c., “one hog of the value of five dollars, the personal property of Eli Wilson and Wm. Halliburton, then and there being found, then and there feloniously did steal, take and carry away, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided.”
The second count charged that the defendant, on, &c., with &c., at, &c., “one hog of the value of five dollars, of the personal property of Eli Wilson and Wm. Halliburton, then and there being found, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously mark, with intent then and there to steal and carry away, and convert the same to his own use.” (R. C. 1845, p. 360, § 38.)
The third count charged that the defendant on, &c., at, &c., “did then and there feloniously alter the ear marks of a hog of the value of two dollars, then and there being an animal, the subject of grand larceny, then and there being the property of Eli Wilson and Wm. Halliburton then and there being found, with intent,” &c. (R. C. 1845, p. 360, § 38.)
The record did not show any plea by the defendant, nor that he was arraigned upon the indictment.
The bill of exceptions showed that, at the trial, there was evidence tending to prove that Wilson and Halliburton had some hogs running in the woods, and that defendant caught one of them, carried it away, cut off its ears, and put his own mark upon it.
The defendant offered to show that he was at that time in the employ of Hoss, that he took the hog by the direction of Hoss, and that Hoss claimed the hog before and afterwards. This evidence was excluded, and defendant excepted.
Wilson, a witness for the State, testified that Hoss had said “it was a lie if defendant or any other man said that he had sent defendant into the woods to catch hogs for him.” The defendant excepted to the admission of this evidence.
The defendant asked several instructions, all of which were refused, and he excepted. The first asserted that the jury could not convict the defendant unless they believed that he “wilfully altered the mark of the hog, with intent to steal, or convert the same to his own use.” No instructions whatever were given. There was a verdict of “guilty.” The defendant was afterwards brought into court in custody of the sheriff and sentenced.
After a motion for new trial overruled, he appealed.
C. Jones and J. R. Arnold, for appellant.
H. A. Clover, for the State.
1. The record of the proceedings of the Circuit Court in this case shows that the trial was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Conway
...error. State v. Kilgore, 70 Mo. 546; State v. Branstetter, 65 Mo. 149; State v. Stonum, 62 Mo. 596; State v. Jones, 61 Mo. 232; State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55. In so holding this court necessarily distinguished between civil and criminal cases, for in the former nondirection is not error. We ......
-
State v. Anderson
...all proper instructions, whether asked for or not, and that a failure to do so will warrant a reversal. 65 Mo. 155; 61 Mo. 233; 62 Mo. 596; 20 Mo. 55; 66 Mo. 149. But it has never been expressly held, so far as I am advised, nor does it necessarily follow from the above cases, that where in......
-
State v. Chaney
...duty of the judge of a criminal court 'to instruct the jury in all the law arising in the case.' Hardy v. State, 7 Mo. 607, 609; State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55, 57. In the Matthews case, the court said: 'It was the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law of the case. The instruct......
-
State v. Messino
...67; State v. Jones, 61 Mo. 232; State v. Braunschweig, 36 Mo. 398; State v. Schoenwald, 31 Mo. 167; State v. Buckner, 25 Mo. 167; State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55; Harris v. People, 130 Ill. 457; State v. Christian, 30 La. Ann. 367; Stubbs v. State, 49 Miss. 716; State v. Cross, 27 Mo. 332; Dou......